Talk:Biodegradable bag

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Technology This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles Environment Mid‑importance Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Packaging This article is within the scope of WikiProject Packaging, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of containers, packaging, and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PackagingWikipedia:WikiProject PackagingTemplate:WikiProject PackagingContainers articles

The title has been changed to singular per Wikipedia guidelines. Rlsheehan (talk) 17:08, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This section says "(ref: ASTM International D 6002)". However, ASTM withdrew this standard, according to the article Biodegradable plastic. The rest of my comment assumes that the Biodegradable plastic article is accurate. The current article (Biodegradable bag) probably shouldn't cite D 6002 at all. A case could be made for citing it, provided that the current article clearly indicates that the standard was withdrawn. However, a much better answer would be to find another, completely independent source to cite. Oaklandguy (talk) 05:38, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have observed that the "Materials" section, especially, is sorely lacking in citations from any scientific source whatsoever, even though it is a section that deserves authentic scientific information. Citations (nos 2,3 and 7) seem to me to be meaningless if they are not linked to and cannot be immediately accessed or verified. If you are citing a book, for example, you should have to provide a link to the PDF version of it and the page no in the ebook where the specific instance is cited. Otherwise, merely mentioning the name of a book or an article not available on the web in the citation is not of much use. The one link provided that can be accessed (citation no 8) does not provide links to primary sources, only the opinions of one expert (presumably). That is not scientific information.

This article, I feel, needs attention from an expert. Knaveknight (talk) 15:07, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Biodegradable bag. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091030051333/http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=b2333ddf96abf25788ef3037ffcfb40a&tpl=%2Fecfrbrowse%2FTitle16%2F16cfr260_main_02.tpl to http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=b2333ddf96abf25788ef3037ffcfb40a&tpl=%2Fecfrbrowse%2FTitle16%2F16cfr260_main_02.tpl

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:00, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]